Every definition is a variation of the same thing. Private ownership, free markets, etc. Just because you have a pet definition, doesn’t change the general one.

What a surprise a capitalist suck-up can't even minimally define the term. — StreetlightX

How would you define it? Copy paste Wikipedia? It can have many aspects, but a defining one is private CAPITAL.

What is “capitalism”? I told you how I define it, and I think it fundamentally illegitimate. It’s not simply a matter of bad loopholes and loose regulations. — Xtrix

Being able to own the capital to make products to sell.

Your higher socialist authority has revealed the future: You will sell vegan hotdogs on stale sugarless gluten free buns with ersatz condiments from a cart at a slaughter house. Yes, of course there will be a 5 year plan for you to follow and a daily quota to keep you on your toes, lest you fall into old fashioned capitalist sloth. — Bitter Crank

Excellent comrade...

Then life goes on, or it doesn't. — Bitter Crank

Im just surprised you wouldn’t be for a higher authority stepping in with socialist tendencies.

Warren Buffet might make the same wrong decision. — Bitter Crank

True enough. Alabama made wrong decisions in 1952. Took US government to make right decision in 1964.

Agreed. But sometimes regional management makes the wrong decision. Then what? He can still override. Regional managers can tell people to come into work who can work from home because he has more control. Why does being closer to the workers make them better decision makers? As long as you have compliant workers, it works. Not so much with unions.

@Bitter Crank @Hanover @Maw @Xtrix
https://www.cnn.com/2021/12/31/business/bernie-sanders-warren-buffett-steelworkers-strike/index.html

Thought this was somewhat relevant.

In a socialist economy, with the workers owning and running the operations, the management-line worker antagonism can be minimized. — Bitter Crank

How so? Look at Chernobyl.. Eek.. Comrade.. do this..Should we? I don't know how? Comarade, do it or else...

Socialism will not eliminate assholes, alas. For that you will have to wait for the Kingdom of Heaven or evolution, whichever comes first. Don't hold your breath. — Bitter Crank

Haha very true!

Marx didn't leave it out, I did. I can't represent all of Das Capital here. Full Disclosure: I have not read all of Das Capital. Entrepreneurs are engaged in the act of 'original accumulation': It's the news stand owner who eventual becomes the owner of the New York Times. It's the tailor making clothes for a few minors who eventually becomes LEVIS. It's the garage tinkerers who eventually becomes Microsoft and Apple. — Bitter Crank

Ok, so what does he say about this? Simply that they are necessary but will be discarded? Again, what about the hot dog seller?

I tend to think that people are more alike than they are different, and that social influences determine a lot of our character. It matters a great deal how one is raised up from childhood.

There isn't any final answer here. Individuals have managed to flourish, and have failed to flourish, under all sorts of arrangements. For instance, I tend to be a loner; I do not like intense complicated social engagement. I am not usually ambitious on a sustained basis. I live fairly simply. Under which economic system would I most effectively flourish? I can imagine being unhappy in a socialist society, and I have certainly been unhappy at times in our capitalist scheme.

People find arbitrary and capricious control very unpleasant. It is also the case that most of us are perfectly capable of being arbitrary and capricious, and cruel in unusual ways. Only one snake was required to ruin paradise. — Bitter Crank

Right, but I guess what would socialism have to do with that? It wouldn't solve it. It's simply interpersonal stuff.

It could very well be that the hotdog cart is one of a fleet of hotdog carts owned by the mafia-controlled cart cartel. What looks like individual entrepreneurial activity might actually be an egregiously exploitative form of retail drudgery. I never buy anything a la cart. It's disgusting. Car exhaust falling on the wieners; flies and people buzzing around breathing on the merchandise. Everybody knows pickle relish is made from the pickles that fell on the factory floor. As for then buns, they are ancient rolls loaded with preservatives so they can not mold, however much they might want to. As for wieners-- even Nathan's kosher all beef version -- there's a reason sausage [and laws] aren't made in public. — Bitter Crank

Hehe, but you are evading.. That guy wants to make a buck on his own, that's all. It is primitive capitalism but would the comrade societies really confiscate his cart, crusty buns, and animal byproduct meat? I mean you are implying it is a nebbish industry, but it represents a lot of small sole proprietor industries.. the self-made donut shop, etc. Would he have to give the cart and materials to Hot Dog Comradeship Coop and be doled an income from them instead?

All these people working in thousands of companies possess a vast pool of knowledge about how to run things. — Bitter Crank

Agreed, but I think this is leaving out something major.. That is to say, small businesses at their early phases are run a lot by the owners (though not always). So what Marx is leaving out is the incubation period of small companies that then make it to behemoths.. It seems like Marxian economic theory always figures the company at its height rather than its birth. What about the very beginnings of small companies, or the companies that really don't grow that much. Think of the hot dog vendor out there everyday slinging 100s of hotdogs daily. He is content with his cart. You can say that he will be left alone, but then you are conceding some form of capitalism, it's just where to draw the line once a business is mature enough to be run by a board of directors and managers.

This is why I really don’t understand modern day US political discourse from the right side. What’s with people thinking Biden is going to instigate a Marxist plot when it’s guys like him who are more interested in military spending than infrastructure — Albero

Got me. He is doing them a favor.. During COVID, you need exactly someone liberal enough to be a release valve..It's exactly crises like these that are cause for the percolations of a revolution otherwise.

so is it wrong to deny someone the experience of love or joy or beauty. If you want to take credit for the former you will also take it for the latter. — NOS4A2

Not to derail my own thread, but this is wrong because not experiencing joy is not good or bad if no one is around to know. PREVENTING bad when one is able, is always good, period.

Nobody could’ve predicted capitalism’s resilience — Albero

I mean, it's not that hard to understand to me. Marx didn't predict that the government could be so involved in stop-gaps (think FDR in the Great Depression, Teddy Roosevelt during the early 1900s, think LBJ in the post-war era).. Once that was realized, then truly "revolutionary" change was seen as unnecessary to keeping the system going. Conservatives should thank liberals, as they helped sustain the system, not get rid of it.

Sure, it’s hard to pack up and leave. No one said it was easy. But the unrealistic part is believing one can or should be insulated from such hardship. — NOS4A2

Absolutely not my position at all. Putting someone else in a situation that experiences hardship is just wrong, period. Hence my antinatalism. I don't believe it makes you more virtuous, etc. It might make you more compassionate or savvy but if you need hardship to do that, then the whole damn system (life) is corrupt and should be stopped immediately.

Owning the means of production privately and turning a profit is a "problem" in large part because Marx’s analysis also leads him to conclude there's a tendency of the rate of profit to fall with increasing automation-where in the short-term it tends to be in the interest of individual firms to introduce more automation that lowers production costs relative to their competitors. However, in the long term automation decreases the overall rate of profit across the capitalist economy. Marx thinks this will cause the system to become increasingly unstable, among other reasons because it will drive the rate of exploitation to increase, and this will make it more likely that there's a revolution where the workers seize the means of production (this is the sort of thing that Marxists may be referring to when they talk about 'internal contradictions' of capitalism). — Albero

Understood. So I guess the best means to communism is let capitalism do its thing, cause it will just "get" there one day.

I think @Maw had some good points regarding precarity though. That is to say and here is where @NOS4A2 is unrealistic. If businesses are exploitive, unfair, and miserable, it can be hard to simply pack up and go somewhere else. There is an inertia to being a worker who needs to rely on everything from an organization that is literally your lifeline. Indeed this is a power differential to the wealthy and the not-so-wealthy or downright poor. Agency is had by the wealthy and not so much for the not-wealthy.

That's irrelevant to the topic of the OP where there is no mention of socialism or any other economic alternatives to capitalism. We are discussing the conditions and relationship between the capitalist class and wage laborers, i.e. the "arrangement" between capitalists and workers. Considering that you continue to bypass what I'm saying and are pivoting the argument towards theoretical socialist arrangements, seems like you tacitly accept my premise that the social arrangement of Capitalism is unjust. — Maw

Yeah man, I consider life and ALL working arrangements unjust. I think the issue lies in a much more fundamental problem with putting more people in a no-win situation of comply or die in the first place. The first real form of exploitation (I know, its not Marx' definition, but in terms of putting someone in a bind, it is). I'm a freakn antinatalist, all sides (capitalists/communists/anarchists, whatever) hate me :lol:.

I think we are confusing corrupt capitalist practices or capitalism with bad loopholes and loose regulation practices, with the concept itself. The same goes for @Xtrix here:

The very idea of ownership and private property is questionable, but my point was that the capitalist relationship of employer/employee is maintained by a system of laws, many based on these "rights." Let's assume there's nothing wrong with ownership and private property -- regardless, how capitalist corporations are organized is fundamentally undemocratic. There are alternatives to this -- co-ops are a good example, worker councils, etc. That, to me, is the heart of the matter. Why should a small group of people -- a few major shareholders, 10-20 board directors, and a handful of executives get all of profits generated by the entire workforce? Furthermore, why should the majority of the workforce have no say whatsoever in determining what to do with those profits? Do you find this to be just way of conducting affairs? Why not some other way?

It may have been OK if the ruling corporate class didn't become so greedy. If, for example, they re-invested in the company infrastructure, workers pay and benefits, community, etc., instead of giving 90%+ of their profits to shareholders in the form of dividends and stock buybacks. It's precisely this way of conducting business -- the neoliberal way -- that has really decimated the society and has led to such anti-capitalist sentiment. Almost nothing can be worse for capitalism than neoliberalism, which is what we're living under currently (and for the last 40 years). — Xtrix

The "employer" in many cases isn't only one person but a group of people, who maintain their position through laws surrounding ownership and property rights, which is a gift from governments (that create and enforce those laws). — Xtrix

Barring corruption (which is its own problem), what is inherently wrong with owning the means to produce products and services if you got it with your own money or a loan? The reward is the profit, the punishment is loss of business. I did mention that it is harder for folks to understand how to start their own business. That is also a different matter that I think needs to be addressed.

That seems like a fair analysis. I used to feel that way, too. But I’ve come to find the theory of exploitation risks limiting one’s options, and worse, oneself. If everyone is out to exploit you, how could you morally work or trade with them? If you believe you’re a slave, how does one not think and act like a slave? It’s no surprise to me, at least, that Marx was a foul-smelling deadbeat, getting by on the labor and wealth of others. — NOS4A2

I think our current system doesn't show the avenues very well for how one can become their own business owner. In the 18th and 19th century, it really was easier to start a cobbler business, a blacksmith, a small peddler, or any number of things.. Because the costs of living were lower (with less expectations), one could very well work for oneself easily... The large explosion of population that came with factories, meant that business became impersonal things that only really clever people who knew the paperwork, connections, and avenues and could sort it out from all the bureaucracy could get done. Now everyone is a salaried and wage worker.. Marx is every bit as relevant today as he was then.. Have you actually read his works? He had sharp analysis and was no charlatan in terms of thought-producer.. He was prolific in his economic and sociological thinking.

They were built with somebody's money -- stockholders', banks', etc. So yes their property will be taken from them--expropriating the expropriators. Socialism does away with private ownership of factories, railroads, warehouses, stores, etc. No, they will not be compensated. No, they will not be taken out and shot. If they have very large and multiple houses, they will lose those too. Yes, they will be free to join work groups like other workers do. — Bitter Crank

I think your best argument here is that individual ideas belong to the community.. but you should back that up with more argumentation because that isn't just apparent by fiat. We are used to the idea that ideas can be protected and doled out by selling rights to companies (or make one's own company) with those ideas. Taking away this individual notion of ideas to a community one, would have to be justified.

Then there was WWII which devastated the USSR; there were severe population losses. After that, there was a period of recovery then the Cold War race with the US. Parr's of the USSR society was decent, but it was a poorly run state monopoly. — Bitter Crank

So the assessment is that since we are a more advanced capitalist civilization, our large government entity would be able to handle the supply and demand problems of balancing capital and consumer goods?

My guess is that many of the old managers of capitalist enterprises would be hired as managers of socialist enterprises. Good management is good management and talent should not be wasted. — Bitter Crank

Damn Bitter Crank, I have to report to the same asshole? Well, fuck...

Where did you get the idea that the same greedy ruthless bastards would be running socialism? People like that will be sent back to attitude class. — Bitter Crank

Gulags? But also, really, what would that look like?

I'm not advocating a terrorist state. We have had more than enough of those already, — Bitter Crank

No no, I wasn't saying that the state kills you but nature.. You must do X to survive and not die.. Thus we as humans are thrown into a system of survival...capitalist/communist, hunting-gathering, whatever. As an antinatalist, I am against the injustice of making a new human endure any of the systems.. but that is a larger question.

Workers always collectively sort out among themselves what reasonable work performance is. — Bitter Crank

Do they? I've noticed with coworkers, that people with more charisma, certain personality-types, group-think takes place that marginalizes other workers.. The minority will simply not be heard, yet again...

If you can't abide by the terms of work that your fellow workers have established, whether that be in a factory, a school, a store, or whatever, then one will be encouraged to go work someplace else. Or one will leave on one's own. — Bitter Crank

So we are still in an the existential problem of "Work sets you free.." In other words, work or die you human scum.. and it better be on "our" terms!

Various personal characteristics like drive, greed, ambition, desire for status, compulsion, obsession, determination, delusions of grandeur, etc. I have always lacked the drive ambition compulsion, and determination to make a successful entrepreneur. In addition, I've never had a good business idea in my life. — Bitter Crank

But someone who does have a good business idea and somehow cobbles it together would say that he "deserves" the gamble of setting out on his own.. His reward is having his own business, his punishment would be going bankrupt..

At the end of the day, why would your problems with the system not be resolved by simply following through and adopting more liberal programs?

So, the bankrupt business owner gets a lift on his feet again from the government after losing his business.. The unemployed grocery bagger gets subsistence pay until they are employed or something. The government gives large subsidies to fuels that are not fossil fuels, etc..

Why are the systemic conditions of domination and precarity conditional on a contingent of small capitalists whose relationship to obtaining capital remains, in your abstract argument, unknown? — Maw

How would a business legitimately form in your opinion? It sounds to me that it would be just as impersonal as today.. Some big thing X (capitalist investor in one, government planning agency in another) decides to do Y.. You are still a worker working for some group of people.. What really changes?

What I can gather from you and @Bitter Crank is that these are possibilities in socialism:
1) People will get paid fairly because there will be no disproportionate wealth distribution between owner classes and worker classes.

But then you forget the great chain of being... Who will want to be a doctor, put in the work for being a programmer or engineer if they get paid as much as the greeter at the front desk? I guess the most "radical" thing in these systems would be that there will be more money spread around but still in a tiered fashion..

2) Decisions and management will be controlled by workers councils.. How would these people run things any better or worse than the current system? Just like other democratic processes.. there will be factions and the people on one side would hate the decisions of people on the other side... Maybe this can be solved by shifting to orgs that have your viewpoints.. but then there's all sorts of problems..
a) Your skillset is not needed in the ones you agree with.. thus stuck at an org with bad views (according to you)
b) Your voice is not heard.. perhaps wherever you go, your view is not represented, it's nothing better or worse than before.
c) I still haven't really seen an answer for insubordination.. I guess move to different councils? But then I am sure your reputation will follow you.. assuming they ask for recommendations and the like.. I see no changes..

So I guess at the end of the day, if what is being proposed is in fact revealed to be nothing much better than the current system, we are kind of stuck.

Socialism is designed for workers to keep almost all of the value of their product and to sell goods at the lowest possible price to maintain the operation. High profit margins do not figure into socialism. — Bitter Crank

Granted that the owner wants to make as much profit as possible, if we go back to the great "chain of being" in his company.. Isn't it fair in a certain sense? Let's look:

The successful regional manager that makes a profit for the company with his management, gets a lot of money.. enough for fancy cars, vacations, and house.

The director of R&D is highly experienced in electronic engineering and programming... He gets enough to live in a large house and buy nice cars and vacations...

The head of other departments have experience and are paid well enough for managing their daily activities.

The technical support is good at answering questions for customers but don't have the technical knowhow of the programmers.. they get paid enough to buy a small house and car..

The customer service has enough to buy maybe a small house, but perhaps just rent in a smaller house or apartment.. they have more generalized knowledge.. .

How would the most educated/experienced get the just rewards in socialism? Simply because people will vote for them in these "Worker's Meetings"..

The capitalist economy already has a way of allocating experience with reward. This incentivizes them to make sure the profits keep rolling in.. and thus work at their job.. How does a socialist system keep people incentivized? Good will towards man?

Small businesses may not necessarily be in the category of

"grew the company from the beginning" — Maw

, but are more likely to be than larger ones.. Looks like small businesses (less than 500 employees) make up something like 44% of US economy and represent 2/3 of net new jobs.

It's also irrelevant to my point, because the Capitalist, regardless of risk, still finds wage laborers in a condition of precarity. — Maw

But again, why is the wage laborers precarity something that is the capitalist's fault for starting something of their own?

The primary issue is, as your title explicitly states, the domineering and exploitative conditions in which the wage laborer finds themselves are systemic. They have no choice but to sell their labor power to the capitalist in order to "sustain their survival...rents/mortgages, food, clothes, healthcare"...in a nutshell, to reproduce themselves daily. Thus, the ability for the wage laborer to reproduce themselves remain conditional and determined by the capitalist class, beyond the (democratic) control by the wage laborers themselves. It is an economic system predicated on vulnerability via the inherent asymmetric relationship of power between the capitalist and individual (key word, individual) worker. — Maw

But the capitalist side will just say that the reason the capitalist is the capitalist (barring CEOs that are just figurehead types or inherited wealth (e.g. Trump).. we are talking were in the muck hawking wares from the company's inception as a sole proprietor/worker) because they were able to pull off investing and growing the company from its beginning. The other workers are welcome to try their hand at this.. They don't so they sell their labor to the capitalists who did try it.

It's for that reason I have little concern over what a CEO makes, an NBA player makes, or how much the neighbor makes. I'm all aboard for providing assistance to the needy, and I realize that aid will likely be paid by those with the most to contribute, but as far as having animosity for the rich, they're not on my radar. What's important to them isn't important to me. — Hanover

Yes, you are pretty much representing this view here:

The CEO of a small tech company gets paid $2 million. The head developer gets paid $300,000. A mid-level developer and R&D personnel $150,000. The tech support gets paid $60-75,000. The sales people range from $70-$200,000. The people in the manufacturing get a range from $45-$85,000 depending on their position. Customer service and related personnel get $50,000. They all get increases every year 5% for inflation. Everyone likes their little hierarchy. In larger companies, the numbers may be more and more room for ladder-climbing. Third world nations that are chiefly exporting and living subsistence want this little hierarchy too. You are trying to take that away with themes of "no property". Rather, the CEO gambled, and put in that effort 30 years ago and deserves the reward of profit-maker and figure head. The developers and mid level people are getting paid enough to live comfortably and do those things mentioned earlier (BBQs, TVs, etc.).. The third world see this and want it exported to their country. So these people would ask you what is your problem? Is it the big guys? The international corporations? The ones that pay the "real bucks" and you can climb much further up the hierarchy? Why would they hate "that"? Hey, you might even get healthcare too! (Bestowed from government or business/fiefdom).

The workers think, "Why should we own the capital.. The owner put that initial gamble and work into the company. It is his profits. He is gracious enough to pay me enough to live. I get to go on vacation soon!". — schopenhauer1

and here:

As for the positions lower in the chain, they are grateful they are not getting paid minimum wage work. Competition for similar positions has made such that they simply want stable work that pays enough. They aren't stupid. They know their skillset is more generalized. They didn't go to school to learn code. They don't have advanced graphic design skills. They didn't learn electronic engineering. Rather, they can solve some problems moderately well, or they can process forms rather efficiently when they need to (let's say the tech support and customer service people). They are so removed from the business owner's business, that it doesn't really phase them how much they are making in comparison. Their only vision of "justice" here is maybe getting a yearly review where they can ask for a raise. There is no "tear down this hierarchy!" thinking here. It is being thankful for a job that pays above minimum and perhaps benefits. That is it. — schopenhauer1

Data is data. It might be as useful in a socialist economy as in a capitalist one to know how the consumption of dark green leafy vegetables is correlated with miles ridden on a bike per day or hours spent in bars. Using that data, A central planner could, for instance, improve the nutritional status of beer drinkers by ordering a stalk of kale stuffed into an individual's mugs of beer. If you don't eat it, you don't get ore beer. — Bitter Crank

Yes, I am just trying to get at, how a socialist regime solves anything different than a capitalist one.. It sounds like you're saying that a socialist one would use it in a way for what's "best" for people rather than for the goals of making companies more profitable.. Some might say those profits translate to more targeted response to the differences and variety in consumer demand.. The socialist one seems to be one "right" way that all must comply with.

Though it’s true that there are exploitative employers, the relationship isn’t inherently exploitative. In my own experience, whenever I’ve had to employ someone it was because I needed help with my work load, not because I intended to unfairly take advantage of someone for my own gain. The relationships were beneficial to all parties involved, as far as I’m concerned. — NOS4A2

I'd like to know, what makes one person able and willing to be an owner, and another only able to work for them? @Bitter Crank, I think this gets to the heart of things here of what NOS's answer is.. We should be white on rice if any answer comes up as "deserves", "is better", or "luck".. all this seems self-serving and/or arbitrary.. We should all be lucky enough to be owners :D.

I guess Bitter, what I am getting at is, in a socialist world, it seems that because it is run by the same human personality-types, and because the functions are pretty much the same, not much changes. There is still a hierarchy. Things have to get made, people must do stuff or there will be consequences (they die).. They will need to rely on someone. Instead of the fiefdom, it is the larger dominion.. But have things changed somehow? How so? How do people decide how much to do, when to do it, and the like? What we have now is management that sets guidelines that they can just fire people.. What does it look like for insubordination under this socialist regime?

Cultural workers do not need permission to form a theatrical troupe, an orchestra, a band, a poetry reading, an art show, a baseball game, or a rodeo. Neither should permission be needed to put on plays, concerts, games, or publishing. Yes, the facilities have to be arranged; maybe built. Large outlays require more community involvement. Building a rodeo in a PETA-strong community would probably be a provocation. Having an outdoor heavy metal concert facility next to a funeral home might not be appropriate (just going by current standards. In the future??? Maybe that will be the rage (shudder).

Inventors do not need permission to invent a really good method of cold fusion. Hey, if you can figure out how to make it work, great. You just invented a new way to fry an egg? Good for you, but just because you invented it, doesn't mean that it has to be produced. We already have 15 ways to fry eggs and we can not afford the production and environmental costs of yet another one. — Bitter Crank

Who decides what gets made? Isn't that going right back to politburos and oligarchic dictatorships? 1984 and all that?

In a socialist economy, selecting managers, coordinators, inspectors, and so on would have the approximate gravity of electing a government. It seems like a system of merit would be better than a system of popular election. — Bitter Crank

Though there's nepotism, isn't that how we do things now? Those who went school for X (doctor, lawyer, engineer, programmer) get the benefits of Y money? Adept managers grow the company and bad ones get fired? That's not to say there aren't golden parachutes and bad managers that get through, but there are bottom lines and such for many folks who don't cut it.

One way is a combination of market mechanisms and central / decentralized planning. Data workers, for instance would form work groups to conduct the necessary market research. — Bitter Crank

Isn't that what marketing departments do? Isn't that what people do when they buy Facebook, Google, and other data?

nformation about available physical resources is required: How much electricity, fresh water, natural gas, petroleum, metal ores, lumber, cement, sand, gravel, fiber, rubber, etc. is on hand or can be obtained. — Bitter Crank

Don't companies and parts of the geographical and land management aspects of the government already do this?

A live inventory of production facilities is critical. For instance, how many canning factories are available; how many foundries; how carpet mills; how many chemical plants; how many steel mills; how many bus and railroad factories, how many clothing factories, how many pharmaceutical plants, how many food plants, etc. are available by county — Bitter Crank

Weren't these started by individuals through investments? Is this meant to take that property from them even though they put in the capital? They would say that is unfair. If that's the case, make your own facilities or something to that effect.

Consumer research polling can determine what the interests and expectations of the population are in various regions for food, clothing, housing, education, employment, entertainment, medical care, and other preferences. — Bitter Crank

Didn't the Soviet Union try to do this but failed with long bread lines, lack of variety, and unfilled stores?

Needless to say, budgeting mechanisms would be required, along with the means to collect funds to finance work. Oversight needs exist to leadoff production and distribution bottlenecks, organizational failure, and so forth. An elected body of expert workers would be needed to conduct that essential oversight. — Bitter Crank

Won't they just be the new managers? What if people don't like working for the new boss anymore than the old one?

Socialism isn't supposed to be an austerity regime caused by ineptitude. It is supposed to deliver to its citizens the benefits produced by their labor. A successful socialist economy will succeed in delivering a fair distribution of goods to everyone. Does that mean that everyone can expect a luxury car, a big house, and expensive gadgetry? No. Needs and wants have to be satisfied within a long-range view of sustainability and fairness (something that ardent capitalists would rather not do). — Bitter Crank

Understood.

n a nutshell, start with good information and stay with good information to the end. — Bitter Crank

Don't they say that market mechanisms fill the demands more efficiently because information is based on price rates where supply meets demand and such?

Leader: After the revolution, there will be strawberries for all.
Peasant: But Leader, I don't like strawberries!
Leader: After the revolution, you will like strawberries ...[or else] — Bitter Crank

But that says it all, doesn't it?

Their loss has been a gain for the wealthier segments of society, so yes, if you are poorer it is really very easy to feel exploited and to feel like a wage slave. — Bitter Crank

Just wondering how would technology and products and services be distributed in your world? Right now it starts with the business owner employing workers. How would insubordination work in this world? In our current one they just get fired.

Lay around all day, perhaps committing acts of unspeakable cruelty to continue this hell or work and try to alleviate these things for ourselves and others? The choice is clear. No matter your preferred economic model. — Outlander

I think perhaps the point for hardcore socialists is that this economic model would be best to alleviate these things. The indifference, cruelty, and such is from capitalism and its actors and mechanisms.

There's no basis for the belief that a person is virtuous, or admirable, or worthy, or good in any moral sense because they make or have a great deal of money, unless making or having a great deal of money is considered to be morally virtuous, admirable, worthy or good by definition. — Ciceronianus

But the argument isn’t that they’re deserving of rewards for already having money but due to their efforts to initially grow their business, they deserve the rewards.

That doesn't mean the system consistently meets its intended purpose 100% of the time, not by far. You can cheat, get ahead as an individual by cutting corners and actually harming the company and its future, which at least for that specific scenario makes said system counterproductive. Of course, if that happens to be the case and the company folds, most CEOs as you say have greater benefits than standard employees and those standard employees can often "just find another job" especially if they have done a great job and have an outstanding record that should and will raise the eyes of potential recruiters and employers. Nobody is really shafted too greatly, at least in an irrecoverable way.

Many of the anti-capitalism arguments seem to involve the whole "daddy's money" ie. inherited wealth/opportunities thing. Someone, regardless as to whether he built his empire from scratch and hard, honest work or not, who has a kid is more than likely to be "very well off" from essentially none of their own doing. This is natural and a very real biological response.
Reveal

But it's not about the how it's about the why. Just because you happen to be a rich and intelligent, hardworking CEO who made millions out of a few dollars doesn't mean your kid is going to be able to maintain your legacy or even not be abjectly horrible at management. A stranger might simply be better. For the company, your sense of "peace" as you close your eyes and breathe your last breaths in old age (some people need concrete evidence of their longevity to comprehend immortality and thus spirituality, I was like that and in many ways still am so I can't talk down). — Outlander

I’d like to see how people like @Bitter Crank and@StreetlightX answer this type of response. I think the left tends to disregard this kind of response because it doesn’t t speak to their pint. They rather focus on third world exploitation because it is more stark as to possible exploitive practices or consequences. StreetlightX did mention lowering wages and benefits which I’d like to see a response from Outsider to for valid observations.

CEO Schopenhauer is making 6.5 times what the head developer gets; 13 times what the mid-level developer and R&D personnel get; about 30 times what the average tech support gets; the CEO gets 40 times what the customer service people receive, and 23 to 45 times what the production people are making. The boss makes 40 times what customer service makes.

Both workers and stockholders are concerned about absurdly high executive salaries, because they reduce dividends and the wages of ordinary workers alike. Besides, over-paid CEOs do not necessarily perform all that well. Now, we don't know from wage figures alone how well this small tech company is doing. It may be that Schopenhauer is an industrial wizard and is making money hand over fist. It could also be that the company is burning through cash reserves like it was jet fuel. In general, though, everyone (except overpaid CEOs) likes to see reasonable wage levels, top to bottom. That seems to be the case here, though a reduction of... say $500,000 a year would not put our beloved CEO in line for food stamps. (You WILL reduce the caviar and champaign cocktail parties from weekly to bimonthly, however. We all have to make sacrifices). — Bitter Crank

Granted, I'd agree with all of this.. I think maybe my use of CEO was misleading throughout here. Let's pretend it is simply a business owner.. The CEO is just a title, and does not have to be connected to a CEO of a Wall Street firm. I am mainly aiming this to the small business types that started the business either from their own money, a loan, a grant, or a combination. And let's say this company is doing very good to great.. They're making great sales, year over year.

I think what you may be discounting is that the manager and senior level positions may be getting paid disproportionally to the owner, but they are still getting paid well. A regional manager and department head that gets paid $200-300,00 a year isn't going to complain too much. Even further, if they are commissioned to keep the people under them working, producing, and (most importantly) contributing to sales and profits (bottom line), and their larger pay depends on it, they will be quite happily ensure this arrangement is maintained.

As for the positions lower in the chain, they are grateful they are not getting paid minimum wage work. Competition for similar positions has made such that they simply want stable work that pays enough. They aren't stupid. They know their skillset is more generalized. They didn't go to school to learn code. They don't have advanced graphic design skills. They didn't learn electronic engineering. Rather, they can solve some problems moderately well, or they can process forms rather efficiently when they need to (let's say the tech support and customer service people). They are so removed from the business owner's business, that it doesn't really phase them how much they are making in comparison. Their only vision of "justice" here is maybe getting a yearly review where they can ask for a raise. There is no "tear down this hierarchy!" thinking here. It is being thankful for a job that pays above minimum and perhaps benefits. That is it.

First, working is not optional. No work, no money; no money, starvation. It's called wage slavery, So a work contract can be terrible but still have takers. BTW, most workers are not even covered by a contract; they are "employed at will" meaning they can be dumped at a moment's notice.

Second, the expectations of the two parties are totally dissimilar. The employer intends to exploit the workers to the maximum, the employees hope to preserve as much of their life force as they can.

Third, very little to no negotiation about the terms of labor are possible when a) there is a line of unemployed people waiting for a job; b) there is no union to give workers some leverage; c) Applying workers are not privy to information which would help them bargain--like, they don't discover what a shit hole a place is until after they are hired. — Bitter Crank

Best answer I've seen so far.. Gets right to the heart of it. Can't add much more to this. The main argument for the left side here is that people are born (not of their will) and if they don't want to starve, have to make a living. But here's the thing. What/who are they working for? It seems to me there is a deeper issue of who gives the priorities and orders. In our current Westernized economy, it is the business owners (and their managers) that give the orders. What are the other options? Government? Worker's collectives? Etc. The work-folk will just say that they don't mind the arrangement as long as they are getting paid enough. Governments can fill in any gaps in between if necessary.. And here you have the standard liberal view rather than revolution and tearing down of the system. There is simply inertia created by people's wanting to simply get on with their lives without much thought to the systems that were created before them.

You need to get an essential relationship straight: It isn't the case that employers create jobs for workers. The fact is that workers create all wealth. If it wasn't for workers (the vast majority of the world's population) you could not turn so much as a dim bulb idea into reality.

Yes, we need bright ideas. Thank you for your service, but you owe your wealth to us. — Bitter Crank

Granted. But how does that relationship work? In the current system, if you have a bright idea, who do you submit it to? The People's Council for Ideas? Rather, they will see the fact that, "Oh, I can try to protect the idea with patents perhaps.. I can try to sell the idea to banks, use my own capital, get loans from friends or other investors, contact the right people to get a prototype, then a line of products, a few key customers set up who have a demand, start marketing to more people, larger customers, etc. and pretty soon grow a workforce to make this happen". How would that change?

What the entrepreneur thinks is irrelevant, as is the rest of your entire post. We're done. — StreetlightX

Why are yo so dismissive? Because I am giving you the other side? Ridiculous. Looks like Bitter Crank did the heavy lifting for you anyways.. Not my fault if you refuse to take the other side's responses into consideration. Live in your bubble where you never have to answer different viewpoints that contradict.

There is exactly zero link, in capitalism, between "cleverness" and reward, or "risk" and reward for that matter. I'll say it again: capitalism rewards profitiability. Markets are not warm and fuzzy altruists: they don't care, not one single bit, about personal cleverness or risk: the only metric markets reward is profitability. Any capitalist worth their salt will tell you this. Fairy tales about "cleverness" and "risk" are a postiori fairy tales retroactively told by capitalists to justify what the market, utterly indifferent to these dumb human constructs, have already engaged in. If a sack of rocks or a God-guaranteed business scheme would find a way to make people part with money, capitalism would reward it. You need to stop buying into the fairy tales capitalists peddle to dupe idiots into thinking they are worth anything at all, and pay attention the only thing the markets care about - profitability. — StreetlightX

You said this.. I gave examples of a single person coming up with an idea and capital and then growing it such as here:

ow about a food truck driver that starts a restaurant and then a chain, and then franchises and becomes a multimillionaire? — schopenhauer1

and here

He gets sales and connections and demand.. He even programmed the original code and created the first circuit boards.. He grows the business in his region.. expands to other markets across the world...He's a global company.. Sole proprietor.. — schopenhauer1

What about those kind of entrepreneurs?

The order of causality needs to be reversed: it's not that capitalists are 'clever' or 'hardworking' or 'risktaking', and therefore they are rewarded. They are rewarded, therefore they are subsequently given the title, based on nothing but a tautological appellation, of 'clever', 'hardworking', or 'risk-taking'. Of course, there are plenty of clever, hardworking, and risk-taking people who are not so rewarded, on account of the fact that there is literally no link whatsoever between these things besides sheer after-the-fact contingency. On the contrary, there are a legion of stupid, lazy, risk-averse unremarkables running around with piles of cash. Profitability is not an index of any personal attribute; more likely it is an index of labor costs, monopoly, network effects, government regulation, investment flows, cultural and technical trends, and a whole host of utterly impersonal mechanisms which markets actually give a shit about. Compared to these factors, 'you took a risk' is about as relevant to markets as the color of a CEOs car.

Hell, it would be nice if capitalism did reward hard work and risk and innovation and intelligence. Then maybe the world would not be the crumbling, dying misery machine that it currently is. — StreetlightX

But the entrepreneur said I made it happen. I took resources and my know how (and maybe connections) and put it together. Why should I be punished for being able to do this? I am basically talking about the small entrepreneur type that strikes it on his/her own? Let us assume we agree that the larger corporate businesses that are simply shell companies of yet larger businesses don't count.

Cool, thanks for ignoring literally everything I wrote - again. Good to know that you cannot read and talking to you is a complete waste of time because you will address not a single thing I wrote. — StreetlightX

You always answer like this. Sad, since I genuinely wanted to see your response in particular. This last post directly answered your notion that only profit matters, not the origin of the risk and I gave you examples of this not being the case (sole proprietors).

If a sack of rocks or a God-guaranteed business scheme would find a way to make people part with money, capitalism would reward it. You need to stop buying into the fairy tales capitalists peddle to dupe idiots into thinking they are worth anything at all, and pay attention the only thing the markets care about - profitability. — StreetlightX

@Ciceronianus @frank @Xtrix@Albero @Raymond @praxis, I am actually more in sympathy with you than certainly @NOS4A2 position here. I am not taking my own position at this point but just think of me as the representative of someone who does think that way. I think that line of reasoning has to be contended with and not just sniped at from afar. It is a real position that needs thorough refuting. @NOS4A2 is certainly not the only one who thinks that way. it is pervasive. Two issues that I think their position contends that needs addressing:

1) You are making a caricature of all business owners as shill Wall Street folks. How about a food truck driver that starts a restaurant and then a chain, and then franchises and becomes a multimillionaire? He will say that he used his capital and wits to do this and employs people who voluntarily sell him their labor as a result. You can't hide behind wall street corruption on this type of scenario. This is someone who is not a wall street guy but someone who really did start one restaurant at a time, expanding capital and profits.

The same goes for a small tech firm. They produce a new gadget that is slightly more competative than the next guy. He gets sales and connections and demand.. He even programmed the original code and created the first circuit boards.. He grows the business in his region.. expands to other markets across the world...He's a global company.. Sole proprietor.. no wall street. No secret global cabal. He will say he created something with his smarts and know how.. And he would say that he is offering work for others who will gladly take the salary. He gets to buy more boats and parasails in the Maldives or whatever.. But this is because he grew his company by selling products and making its profits... providing programmers, accountants, HR personnel, regional managers, factory workers, customer support, technical trainers, and the like work along the way.. He has created "worlds" for his worker-folk.. They get rent/mortgages paid, income for food, etc... He would be very confused on this invective that is abstract where his contribution to his people is tangibly getting them the means to subsist and even have leisure time to follow their entertainment pursuits.

2) @NOS4A2 actually presents a good point. Not because he (and his contingent) is right, but simply that many people think like this.. Specifically when he said:

Employees are happy or not with the relationship to varying degrees, sometimes loving it sometimes hating it, but there can be nothing wrong with the arrangement so long as it is one of voluntary contract and both parties hold up their end of the bargain. This is why I cringe whenever critics declare that one party to this contract deserves public scorn while the other deserves public protection.

The principle of voluntary cooperation, wherever found, but especially in trade, is morally sound. The involuntary and coercive cooperation produced by the regulatory and legal institutions are not. — NOS4A2

Remember the hierarchy? Employees of these middling companies, (and certainly large corporations) see this as fair.. The R&D director is darn tootin' smart and should get paid the six figures. The technical support is not as valuable as the programmer or engineers but valuable enough.. their $60,000 makes sense.. The customer support is an even more generalized skillset and their $50,000 is justified.. You see, it's all a sort of "chain of being" justified by skillset and salary...

Also, very importantly to my personal philosophy, StreetlightX, you are in a similar dilemma as me when it comes to antinatalism.. I know the instant you see that comparison, you will bristle and deride it, but look at this:

The people that accept the hierarchy as "just" and "right" you think are wrong.. That is a large contingent of people (middle class types) that think this way.. Maybe they are wrong.. But as NOS4A2 was saying, how are you going to convince them they are wrong? In a same way, antinatalism is also right, yet people don't see it. They think the current arrangement is "just" and "right" to impose on a new person born into this life. The injustice of it is lost on them. I'm just saying, despite your (assured) protestations, we have similar problems in this regard, even if we disagree.

Finally, I'd like to bring comrade @Bitter Crank into the conversation as he is a battle-worn cold war warrior that would probably add some interesting ideas to the mix.

And that's not to mention the fact that, in practice, capitalists are frequently shielded from the the very 'risks' they like to say they take on: though limited liability, massive world historical bails-outs as we have witnessed for the last decade, laws skewed to the almost absolute benefit of speculators like landlords, etc. When the most devastating global crash since the great depression happened in 2008, how many bank CEOs, who were personally responsible for it, got fucked? Not a single one. One single mid-tier French banker got thrown into jail, and that's it, Meanwhile, pensioners and homeowners got utterly rorted while investment funds gleefully bought assets on the cheap to add to their already inflated portfolios. When businesses fail, almost invariably, it isn't CEOs who suffer - it is workers. Capital protects capital. — StreetlightX

Granted, but the start of a corporation will say something like the following:
Do you know how to manufacture X? Did you know how to bring together the parts, the people, the skills, to get that product created? Did you know how to market and sell it?

I am not just talking about corrupt banking practices but entrepreneurs of small, medium, and eventually large businesses. They will say, that it is they who did these things.. They will say that if the workers who they exploited were clever enough, they would do the same, but they aren't so must sell the labor for an income..

Is surplus theory of value going to convince someone who is able to go on a vacation and BBQ and own a house that the CEO is so bad? The only thing that can be mustered here is the poor third world. But then this just brings in a whole range of arguments from various schools of thought as to how to fix that, that doesn't require the abolition of capital.